In Depth

A two-judge task force looking into the operation of Marion County’s small claims courts has listened to complaints
from the public about inconvenience and confusion with the current system and will consider if any changes are needed.

The feedback makes clear that some people who’ve been before the courts as litigants believe the system is broken.

Public testimony was taken at hearings held Feb. 22 in Perry Township, Feb. 29 in Pike Township, and March 7 in the Marion
Circuit Court, where people talked about their experiences in the nine township courts. They said it was difficult to determine
who were court employees and who were attorneys for the debt-collection agencies or creditors. Litigants explained they felt
harassed or forced to talk with plaintiff attorneys rather than a judge, and that any effort to argue their side would lead
to a loss in court or a greater monetary judgment against them. Many people didn’t understand why their case was sent
to a small claims court away from the township they resided, saying it would make more sense to have a case filed closer to
where they live.

The small claims courts are being put under the microscope following critical news articles in the national media last year
suggesting Marion County litigants may not receive the same access to justice in each small claims court or as parties have
in other Indiana jurisdictions. The Indiana Supreme Court announced in February that Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty
Barteau from the Court of Appeals, both with experience at the small claims level, would host the hearings to get feedback
about the system and then examine the court structure and operations.

At the hearing held in Judge Doug Stephens’ Pike Township courtroom, about 60 people attended and a dozen spoke about
their experiences in small claims courts throughout the county.

Senior Judge Betty Barteau and Judge John Baker, both from the Indiana Court of Appeals, led a task force studying
the Marion County Small Claims system. They conducted three hearings to get public feedback. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Roger and Reita Vandrey of Pike Township spoke about having to travel three times to the small claims court in Decatur Township
to resolve confusion over the payment of a medical bill from 2002. Although they thought they would see a judge, they were
taken after a two-hour wait into a small room with only the bill collector’s attorney and told the judge wasn’t
even in the building. They said they were told to “shut up” when trying to ask questions and were not allowed
to speak, and after the debt was eventually resolved, they had to repeatedly request a document from the court staff to prove
the matter was completed.

“Nobody wanted to hear our side of it,” Reita Vandrey said.

Mariann Hunnicutt from Washington Township talked about having to take a half day off work to travel to a different township
for a court hearing on a medical bill debt. She wasn’t advised of having the option to change venue until she specifically
asked about the possibility, and when she was in court, Hunnicut said she wasn’t able to see a judge.

Brandon R. Major, a litigant in a $3,900 lease dispute, prevailed in Center Township Small Claims Court with a $240 judgment
in his favor. But a Superior Court review led to a reversal and his having to pay almost $6,000 – with only about $1,100
going to the plaintiff and the rest going to the attorney, he said. He also talked about his observations of intimidating
attorney behavior and court staff not helping people who had basic questions about the court procedures.

Some people who have been small claims defendants spoke about court decisions that were not properly recorded, causing them
to handle the same case again due to claims that it wasn’t resolved, when it had been.

Several attorneys offered their feedback, some defending the system and others criticizing the courts.

Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden, who represents defendants in small claims court, said he is concerned about the practice
of “forum-shopping” and believes the courts need more consistency. He also said attorneys should be required to
file all actions in the township where the defendant lives, not just in landlord-tenant disputes as the rules currently require.

Collection attorneys said they have many cases to file, so they often choose a location based on where they can be the most
efficient. That involves locations close to their offices and where they are able to easily get court assistance. Several
said litigants have notice of their rights, including venue change availability, when they receive suits and notices in the
mail.

Phillip La Mere, managing partner at Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician in Indianapolis, described the term forum shopping
as a “gross misnomer” and said it doesn’t happen the way the media or defense attorneys say it does. Most
often, he said litigants’ lack of understanding about the process is because they’re not reading the notices and
documents that are in front of them.

Attorney Jeff Galliher, who has handled about 1,800 eviction cases in the past two years, said he hasn’t observed any
unprofessional conduct from his colleagues or the judges, and that he thinks everyone is very cognizant of litigants’
rights – especially those representing themselves. The legal community is doing its best to get the cases moved through
the system efficiently, he said.

Collections attorney Joseph Guy, past president of the Indiana Creditors Bar Association, argues that lawyers having access
to court space isn’t a conflict and they aren’t presenting themselves as court employees.

“We do need a place to do our work,” he said.

But Baker said a concern that repeatedly has been brought to the task force’s attention is how it appears the plaintiff’s
attorneys are doing tasks and getting preferential treatment that should be reserved for court staff. That can be confusing
to someone who doesn’t understand the system, Baker said. He also pointed out that some evidence has been presented
to the task force that entire courtrooms have been turned over to collection attorneys to use in meeting with debtors.

“The public might not know the difference between the plaintiff’s attorney and a member of the court staff when
they have just arrived at court,” he said.

Baker and Barteau will now put the feedback into context to determine if any changes are needed. They will issue a report
to the Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure which will then study the topic and recommend any needed
changes to the state’s justices for consideration. Any procedural rule changes would come from the Supreme Court. No
timeline exists for that process to happen and there’s no guarantee that any changes will be made, Baker told residents
at the hearings.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Conversations

1 Comments

I was a guarantor on a legal bill, despite a usuary interest rate of 12%per month, aguarantor provision that says im obligated
only if they are still on the case,no date or copy provided, lawyer quit due to knee surgery. Contract eas onesided voidable,
judge interrupted presentation of case, no final statment of charges provided,etc

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.